Proposition 74 would have changed the terms of employment for new public school teachers in California by imposing tougher standards. Their initial probationary period would have been extended from two years to five years. The dismissal procedures for existing teachers also would have been modified in a way that would have made it easier to discipline teachers. Under Proposition 74, two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations would have constituted a level of unsatisfactory performance sufficient to dismiss permanent employees without having to additionally provide a mandatory 90-day period for the employee to improve his or her performance. A school board that wanted to dismiss an unsatisfactory teacher would also not have had to proovide as much initial documentation identifying specific instances of unsatisfactory performance, beyond that included in the evaluations themselves.

Campaign spending on Proposition 74 was very high, totalling over $90 million.

Proposition 74 was one of a quartet of ballot measures on the 2005 ballot that were the centerpiece of Arnold Schwarzenegger's reform plans for California, two years into his governorship. The other three were Proposition 75, Proposition 76 and Proposition 77. The defeat of all four Schwarzenegger measures is frequently cited as a turning-point in Schwarzenegger's governorship.

Text of measure

Title

Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.

Question

The question on the ballot was:

"Should the probationary period for public school teachers be increased from two to five years, and should the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent certificated employee be modified?"

Fiscal impact

Unknown net effect on school districts' costs for teacher compensation, performance evaluations, and other activities. The impact would vary significantly by district and depend largely on future personnel actions by individual school districts.

Arguments in favor

"California schools used to be among the best in the nation. Unfortunately, we’ve gotten off track despite the fact that public school spending increased by $3 billion this year and represents almost 50% of our overall state budget. Instead of just throwing more of our hard-earned tax dollars at the problem, we need to get more money into the classroom and reward high-quality teachers instead of wasting money on problem teachers."

"Unfortunately, California is one of a handful of states with an outdated 'tenure' law that makes it almost impossible and extremely expensive to replace poor-performing teachers. According to the California Journal (05-01-99), one school district spent more than $100,000 in legal fees and ultimately paid a teacher $25,000 to resign. Another district spent eight years and more than $300,000 to dismiss an unfit teacher. Fighting the rules, regulations, and bureaucracy that protects unfit teachers squanders money that should be going to the classroom!"

"Today, even problem teachers are virtually guaranteed 'employment for life.'"

"We need to put more money into our classrooms, instead of wasting it on poor performing teachers, outrageous legal costs, and bureaucratic rules and regulations."[1]

Donors in favor

Map showing county distribution of Proposition 74 votes

$76,142,963 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition 74, through three different campaign committees.

The three campaign committees registered in support of Proposition 74 were:

Citizens to Save California, Yes on Propositions 74 & 76

Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team

Reform California, Yes on 74, 75 and 76

Each committee that registered in support of Proposition 74 also registered in support of other propositions in 2005 (particularly, Proposition 76.) Because of this, it is not possible to say with precision how much of the money raised or spent by these committees was particularly directed at promoting Proposition 74.[2]

"Existing state law already gives school districts the authority to dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty, or other activities not appropriate to teaching—no matter how long a teacher has been on the job."

"We give criminals the right to due process, and our teachers deserve those fundamental rights, as well."

"...university researchers say that they know of no evidence to support the claim that lengthening the teacher probation period improves teacher performance or student achievement."[1]

Donors against

Total campaign cash

Support:

$76,142,963

Opposition:

$14,474,449

The "No on 74" side spent $14,474,449 through four different campaign committees.[3]

Altogether, the three companies were paid $7,876,472.40. Dividing this across the four propositions involved means that approximately $1,969,118.10 was spent collecting signatures on the individual propositions in the Schwarzenegger package.